When a two-runway system is in use at Calgary International Airport, normal departure procedures result in north and eastbound traffic departing from one runway while west and southbound traffic depart from the other runway. This procedure eliminates the need to have flight paths cross after departure, and provides positive lateral separation. Normal procedure for the two aircraft involved would have been for CMM368 to take off from runway 34 and N48BA to take off from runway 28. However, due to the location on the airport of executive aircraft, they are normally released from runway 34 when that runway is active. The controller's willingness to shorten the taxi distances for both aircraft resulted in a change to the normal flow of departure traffic. Furthermore, had both aircraft departed runway 34, separation would have been assured because of the direction of flight after departure. As the aircraft were being vectored to crossing tracks, adherence to appropriate ATC MANOPS would have assured separation. When N48BA contacted the Departure Controller, CMM368 was climbing and passing through 8,500 feet. Thus, the appropriate altitude clearance limit for N48BA would have been 8,000 feet. Any deviation from defined procedures adds to the workload of a controller in the form of extra vigilance and communications. If extra safeguards are not put in place at the time of the deviation or additional time available to monitor the situation until positive separation is achieved is not available, then there is a higher risk of something going wrong. The pressure to move traffic quickly, without undue delay, was the overriding factor in the decision to allow the two aircraft to depart from non-standard runways. The tower and departure controllers have available to them an electronic display which indicates, among other information, the departing runway. The Departure Controller can deny a non-standard departure if traffic warrants. In this case, the controller chose to allow the departures to proceed. Based on previous experience and judgement, the Departure Controller vectored both aircraft to a position from which they could commence their own navigation to the cleared outbound route. At this point, the Departure Controller determined that adequate spacing existed to allow each aircraft an unrestricted climb. Previous experience with these types of aircraft reinforced this perception. In the mind of the controller, the task to separate these two aircraft was now completed and only required sufficient radar monitoring of the flights to ensure a timely hand-off to the next sector. The change in rate of climb of the A320 aircraft was not detected because the Departure Controller did not sufficiently monitor the progress of this flight. His experience did not include the possibility of the aircraft performance changing and affecting the spacing established with the other aircraft. The distraction caused by other control responsibilities and an inadequate periodic scan of the radar display resulted in the failure of the controller to detect this change. There have been a number of recent TSB reports (A97C0144, A97H0007, A98H0002) where controllers have not detected impending conflicts because of inadequate scanning techniques and the absence of additional progress reports requested by the controller. A deviation from normally expected procedures therefore requires additional safeguards to ensure that the safety margins intended by the standard procedures are maintained. This usually requires extra vigilance by the controller or additional checks and balances to be incorporated to ensure that the required separation standards are satisfied. Once the air traffic controller turned CMM268 east towards the Empress Intersection and N48BA south, he checked their respective altitudes and ground speeds. Based on the experience he had gained in controlling other A320 aircraft departures at Calgary, he expected the A320 to continue its climb rate of about 2,500 fpm thus achieving greater than the minimum separation requirements for the two aircraft during their crossing. He did not anticipate that the pilot of the A320 would change his flight profile and thus reduce the aircraft climb rate to about 800 fpm while increasing the speed by about 100 knots. He assumed that certain profiles would be flown and did not recheck the progress of either aircraft until collision avoidance was being taken by the aircraft. Prior to reaching 10,000 feet, the pilot was cleared to a higher altitude without airspeed restrictions. On reaching 10,000 feet, the pilot selected a higher speed which results in the aircraft rate of climb being reduced until that speed is attained. The profile flown by the A320 aircraft was consistent with normal operating procedures for the A320 aircraft. There are several tools available to controllers to assist them in monitoring traffic under their control. One non-radar tool is specifying reports from the crew of the aircraft such as altitude or position reports in addition to any already prescribed. This alerts the controller should a situation change from what was expected, and allows the controller to confirm that the originally envisaged plan is unfolding as desired. The RDPS provides two functions to assist the controller in accurately determining the position of the aircraft. The first is called a predicted track line (PTL), which projects a line from selected aircraft along its current heading, and which can be set for any variable time period from 1 minute to 20 minutes. The second tool is called a range bearing line (RBL) which will display a line joining two aircraft targets, an aircraft to a ground position or two ground positions, and show range and bearing data. This information is updated for each sweep of the radar. Neither of these two tools would have prevented the loss of separation or provided an audible or visual alarm to the controller. However, had either been used in this situation, it may have provided a reminder to the controller that the unusual flight path of the two aircraft, different from the normally used procedures, required an extra level of monitoring. The PTL and RBL do not satisfy the requirements of a conflict alert tool. This type of system would provide some type of warning to the controller that a loss of separation is imminent and that action is required to resolve it. The RAMP radar system was to have this capability functioning when the system was commissioned. Technical problems, which persist to this day, have prevented the conflict alert system from being implemented. There are operational conflict alerting systems in use in other parts of the world. This type of tool would provide an additional safeguard, much as TCAS does, to avoid losses of separation or mid-air collisions.Analysis When a two-runway system is in use at Calgary International Airport, normal departure procedures result in north and eastbound traffic departing from one runway while west and southbound traffic depart from the other runway. This procedure eliminates the need to have flight paths cross after departure, and provides positive lateral separation. Normal procedure for the two aircraft involved would have been for CMM368 to take off from runway 34 and N48BA to take off from runway 28. However, due to the location on the airport of executive aircraft, they are normally released from runway 34 when that runway is active. The controller's willingness to shorten the taxi distances for both aircraft resulted in a change to the normal flow of departure traffic. Furthermore, had both aircraft departed runway 34, separation would have been assured because of the direction of flight after departure. As the aircraft were being vectored to crossing tracks, adherence to appropriate ATC MANOPS would have assured separation. When N48BA contacted the Departure Controller, CMM368 was climbing and passing through 8,500 feet. Thus, the appropriate altitude clearance limit for N48BA would have been 8,000 feet. Any deviation from defined procedures adds to the workload of a controller in the form of extra vigilance and communications. If extra safeguards are not put in place at the time of the deviation or additional time available to monitor the situation until positive separation is achieved is not available, then there is a higher risk of something going wrong. The pressure to move traffic quickly, without undue delay, was the overriding factor in the decision to allow the two aircraft to depart from non-standard runways. The tower and departure controllers have available to them an electronic display which indicates, among other information, the departing runway. The Departure Controller can deny a non-standard departure if traffic warrants. In this case, the controller chose to allow the departures to proceed. Based on previous experience and judgement, the Departure Controller vectored both aircraft to a position from which they could commence their own navigation to the cleared outbound route. At this point, the Departure Controller determined that adequate spacing existed to allow each aircraft an unrestricted climb. Previous experience with these types of aircraft reinforced this perception. In the mind of the controller, the task to separate these two aircraft was now completed and only required sufficient radar monitoring of the flights to ensure a timely hand-off to the next sector. The change in rate of climb of the A320 aircraft was not detected because the Departure Controller did not sufficiently monitor the progress of this flight. His experience did not include the possibility of the aircraft performance changing and affecting the spacing established with the other aircraft. The distraction caused by other control responsibilities and an inadequate periodic scan of the radar display resulted in the failure of the controller to detect this change. There have been a number of recent TSB reports (A97C0144, A97H0007, A98H0002) where controllers have not detected impending conflicts because of inadequate scanning techniques and the absence of additional progress reports requested by the controller. A deviation from normally expected procedures therefore requires additional safeguards to ensure that the safety margins intended by the standard procedures are maintained. This usually requires extra vigilance by the controller or additional checks and balances to be incorporated to ensure that the required separation standards are satisfied. Once the air traffic controller turned CMM268 east towards the Empress Intersection and N48BA south, he checked their respective altitudes and ground speeds. Based on the experience he had gained in controlling other A320 aircraft departures at Calgary, he expected the A320 to continue its climb rate of about 2,500 fpm thus achieving greater than the minimum separation requirements for the two aircraft during their crossing. He did not anticipate that the pilot of the A320 would change his flight profile and thus reduce the aircraft climb rate to about 800 fpm while increasing the speed by about 100 knots. He assumed that certain profiles would be flown and did not recheck the progress of either aircraft until collision avoidance was being taken by the aircraft. Prior to reaching 10,000 feet, the pilot was cleared to a higher altitude without airspeed restrictions. On reaching 10,000 feet, the pilot selected a higher speed which results in the aircraft rate of climb being reduced until that speed is attained. The profile flown by the A320 aircraft was consistent with normal operating procedures for the A320 aircraft. There are several tools available to controllers to assist them in monitoring traffic under their control. One non-radar tool is specifying reports from the crew of the aircraft such as altitude or position reports in addition to any already prescribed. This alerts the controller should a situation change from what was expected, and allows the controller to confirm that the originally envisaged plan is unfolding as desired. The RDPS provides two functions to assist the controller in accurately determining the position of the aircraft. The first is called a predicted track line (PTL), which projects a line from selected aircraft along its current heading, and which can be set for any variable time period from 1 minute to 20 minutes. The second tool is called a range bearing line (RBL) which will display a line joining two aircraft targets, an aircraft to a ground position or two ground positions, and show range and bearing data. This information is updated for each sweep of the radar. Neither of these two tools would have prevented the loss of separation or provided an audible or visual alarm to the controller. However, had either been used in this situation, it may have provided a reminder to the controller that the unusual flight path of the two aircraft, different from the normally used procedures, required an extra level of monitoring. The PTL and RBL do not satisfy the requirements of a conflict alert tool. This type of system would provide some type of warning to the controller that a loss of separation is imminent and that action is required to resolve it. The RAMP radar system was to have this capability functioning when the system was commissioned. Technical problems, which persist to this day, have prevented the conflict alert system from being implemented. There are operational conflict alerting systems in use in other parts of the world. This type of tool would provide an additional safeguard, much as TCAS does, to avoid losses of separation or mid-air collisions. Staffing in the Calgary Terminal Specialty met unit standards. The controller's workload was assessed as moderate with moderate complexity. The supervisor was staffing a position in relief during scheduled break rotation. All necessary equipment was serviceable at the time of the occurrence. Co-active runways were being used at Calgary International Airport. North and eastbound traffic normally depart from runway 16/34 and south and westbound traffic normally depart from runway 10/28 during co-active runway operations. Based on their direction of flight, both aircraft took off on the non-standard runways. Procedures for assuring positive separation of aircraft, as specified in NAV CANADA ATC MANOPS, were not followed. The air traffic controller did not monitor the progress of the two aircraft for a period of about two minutes prior to the TCAS alert. A risk of collision occurred when CMM368 came within 500 feet horizontally and 500 feet vertically of N48BA in an area where either 3 nm horizontal or 1,000 feet vertical separation is required.Findings Staffing in the Calgary Terminal Specialty met unit standards. The controller's workload was assessed as moderate with moderate complexity. The supervisor was staffing a position in relief during scheduled break rotation. All necessary equipment was serviceable at the time of the occurrence. Co-active runways were being used at Calgary International Airport. North and eastbound traffic normally depart from runway 16/34 and south and westbound traffic normally depart from runway 10/28 during co-active runway operations. Based on their direction of flight, both aircraft took off on the non-standard runways. Procedures for assuring positive separation of aircraft, as specified in NAV CANADA ATC MANOPS, were not followed. The air traffic controller did not monitor the progress of the two aircraft for a period of about two minutes prior to the TCAS alert. A risk of collision occurred when CMM368 came within 500 feet horizontally and 500 feet vertically of N48BA in an area where either 3 nm horizontal or 1,000 feet vertical separation is required. A risk of collision occurred when the departure air traffic controller did not follow ATC MANOPS separation criteria for two aircraft which were to occupy the same airspace, and then did not adequately monitor the progress of the two aircraft for a period of about two minutes. The reason for not monitoring the aircraft involved was based on controller expectations.Causes and Contributing Factors A risk of collision occurred when the departure air traffic controller did not follow ATC MANOPS separation criteria for two aircraft which were to occupy the same airspace, and then did not adequately monitor the progress of the two aircraft for a period of about two minutes. The reason for not monitoring the aircraft involved was based on controller expectations.